Clear active tree scopes on StyleEngine::didDetach().

Clear active tree scopes on StyleEngine::didDetach().

clearResolver() is not only called on didDetach(). Make it private and
name it clearResolvers to reflect that it clears scoped resolvers as
well. The comments related to style resolver reconstructruction is
removed as that does not happen anymore.

Clearing m_treeBoundaryCrossingScopes is moved into didDetach()
which was a more natural place.

Clear active and dirty tree scopes in didDetach to not unnecessarily
hang on to any memory associated with them.

These changes were done investigating issue 675533, but won't
necessarily fix anything for that issue.

BUG=567021, 675533
Committed: https://crrev.com/b0f03812c4f8ca50a0cc07caaca0c8eafbb2862a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#439973}

[rune, 2016-12-20 14:58:30]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-20 14:58:41]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[rune, 2016-12-20 15:03:25]

rune@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ esprehn@chromium.org, meade@chromium.org, sigbjornf@opera.com

[rune, 2016-12-20 15:03:25]

ptal

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-20 17:22:38]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-20 17:22:39]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[sof, 2016-12-20 19:04:10]

If these objects will already become garbage at the same time (==same GC) as the
StyleEngine, then there won't be gains wrt allocation reuse here. If that's the
main motivation.

[rune, 2016-12-20 21:04:31]

On 2016/12/20 19:04:10, sof wrote:
> If these objects will already become garbage at the same time (==same GC) as
the
> StyleEngine, then there won't be gains wrt allocation reuse here. If that's
the
> main motivation.

I think they can be garbage collected before for the same reason I gave in
https://codereview.chromium.org/2589243002#msg11

[esprehn, 2016-12-20 21:51:08]

lgtm

[rune, 2016-12-21 00:02:01]

The CQ bit was checked by rune@opera.com

[rune, 2016-12-21 00:02:01]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from esprehn@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2593643002/#ps20001
(title: "Rebased")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-21 00:02:37]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-21 01:55:19]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 20001, "attempt_start_ts": 1482278521054220,
"parent_rev": "73d9e87554a558a2ba9986be447772463b615234", "commit_rev":
"e3b1347f19e848b894cd435c8afee425ed72b15d"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-21 01:55:46]

Description was changed from

==========
Clear active tree scopes on StyleEngine::didDetach().

clearResolver() is not only called on didDetach(). Make it private and
name it clearResolvers to reflect that it clears scoped resolvers as
well. The comments related to style resolver reconstructruction is
removed as that does not happen anymore.

Clearing m_treeBoundaryCrossingScopes is moved into didDetach()
which was a more natural place.

Clear active and dirty tree scopes in didDetach to not unnecessarily
hang on to any memory associated with them.

These changes were done investigating issue 675533, but won't
necessarily fix anything for that issue.

BUG=567021,675533
==========

to

==========
Clear active tree scopes on StyleEngine::didDetach().

clearResolver() is not only called on didDetach(). Make it private and
name it clearResolvers to reflect that it clears scoped resolvers as
well. The comments related to style resolver reconstructruction is
removed as that does not happen anymore.

Clearing m_treeBoundaryCrossingScopes is moved into didDetach()
which was a more natural place.

Clear active and dirty tree scopes in didDetach to not unnecessarily
hang on to any memory associated with them.

These changes were done investigating issue 675533, but won't
necessarily fix anything for that issue.

BUG=567021,675533

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2593643002
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-21 01:55:47]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-21 01:58:16]

Description was changed from

==========
Clear active tree scopes on StyleEngine::didDetach().

clearResolver() is not only called on didDetach(). Make it private and
name it clearResolvers to reflect that it clears scoped resolvers as
well. The comments related to style resolver reconstructruction is
removed as that does not happen anymore.

Clearing m_treeBoundaryCrossingScopes is moved into didDetach()
which was a more natural place.

Clear active and dirty tree scopes in didDetach to not unnecessarily
hang on to any memory associated with them.

These changes were done investigating issue 675533, but won't
necessarily fix anything for that issue.

BUG=567021,675533

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2593643002
==========

to

==========
Clear active tree scopes on StyleEngine::didDetach().

clearResolver() is not only called on didDetach(). Make it private and
name it clearResolvers to reflect that it clears scoped resolvers as
well. The comments related to style resolver reconstructruction is
removed as that does not happen anymore.

Clearing m_treeBoundaryCrossingScopes is moved into didDetach()
which was a more natural place.

Clear active and dirty tree scopes in didDetach to not unnecessarily
hang on to any memory associated with them.

These changes were done investigating issue 675533, but won't
necessarily fix anything for that issue.

BUG=567021,675533

Committed: https://crrev.com/b0f03812c4f8ca50a0cc07caaca0c8eafbb2862a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#439973}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-21 01:58:17]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b0f03812c4f8ca50a0cc07caaca0c8eafbb2862a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#439973}

[sof, 2016-12-21 07:25:33]

On 2016/12/20 21:04:31, rune wrote:
> On 2016/12/20 19:04:10, sof wrote:
> > If these objects will already become garbage at the same time (==same GC) as
> the
> > StyleEngine, then there won't be gains wrt allocation reuse here. If that's
> the
> > main motivation.
> 
> I think they can be garbage collected before for the same reason I gave in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2589243002#msg11

makes sense, StyleEngine would then live on in a detached state.